In 2021, Boston instituted a zoning ordinance aimed at ensuring real estate developers consider the impacts of their projects on residents historically discriminated against in housing. This move was largely supported by an underused mandate in the 1968 Fair Housing Act, notably revitalized by the Obama administration. Massachusetts State Senator Lydia Edwards remarked on the importance of the rules attached to federal funding, highlighting their role in pushing cities to combat old discriminatory practices. However, the Trump administration is taking a step back from this mandate.
The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) mandate requires states, cities, and public housing agencies that receive federal funding to actively tackle housing discrimination and promote equal housing opportunities. This policy was introduced partly as a response to a long history of discriminatory federal housing policies, such as redlining, which has adversely affected Black homebuyers.
In a controversial move, the Trump administration introduced a new AFFH rule that only requires jurisdictions to certify they have taken any action towards promoting fair housing, shifting the focus from analyzing barriers to equal housing choices to a mere general commitment. This significant rollback drew criticism from researchers and advocates who argue that it undermines efforts to build affordable housing and promote equal opportunities.
Experts warn that these changes arrive at a critical time as complaints of housing discrimination are rising, and the U.S. is grappling with a severe housing shortage affecting those most in need, including people of color, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Brandon Weiss, a law professor, stated that the federal government is signaling that integration is no longer a priority, which risks perpetuating residential racial segregation.
Additionally, Trump’s administration has cut funding to nonprofit groups that work to enforce anti-discrimination rules, exacerbating challenges for affordable housing initiatives. The HUD spokesperson assured that the agency would continue its fight against discrimination, although critics maintain that these new strategies do not reflect a commitment to meaningful change.
Historically, the AFFH mandate was largely ineffective until the Obama administration reenergized it in 2015, requiring jurisdictions to evaluate local barriers to equal housing and develop plans for addressing these issues. This resulted in measurable improvements in housing equality, with cities undertaking more substantial analyses of eviction systems and discriminatory practices.
As a case in point, Philadelphia utilized the Obama-era AFFH rule to address its disproportionate eviction rates affecting Black tenants, securing rights for renters which led to a significant drop in evictions.
In stark contrast, the Trump administration’s efforts undermine these strides by suspending the strengthened AFFH rules and introducing a narrower framework, leaving many advocates frustrated. Secretary of HUD Scott Turner claimed that ending these rules would restore trust among local communities, yet critics argue that the absence of accountability will hinder opportunities for fair housing.
According to housing researchers, the changes instituted during Trump’s administration are likely to restrict housing opportunities for middle-class and working-class families, resulting in higher costs and fewer choices across all communities. The implications of these policy shifts extend beyond suburban areas, influencing the broader landscape of fair housing in America.